Hopefully someone in Labour, the Greens, NZ First, and/or Mana, is keeping careful track of every one of these nasty, neo-liberal, “reforms”.

Once in power, a Labour-Greens-NZ First-Mana Coalition must act decisively to undo and repeal every single one of these “reforms”.

Not one strand of their repugnant legislation must be allowed to stand – not one.

Only a fool could still believe that National’s labour “reforms” are in any way designed to raise wages. They are not.

The true intent of so-called “labour market reforms” is to make the workforce more “flexible” (exploitable); undermine the last vestiges of Unionisation; and drive down wages so that our workforce is a cheaper option than Australia.

It is a plan to turn this country into an “anglocised China” or “Southseas Mexico“.

The good news is that undoing National’s legislative obscenities should be a reasonably easy task.

The harder job will be for an incoming government to enact new legislation to enshrine workers’ rights forever. We simply cannot afford National coming to power ever few years and repeating their destructive policies against workers.

It’s one thing for Middle Class New Zealand to have a rush of blood to their heads and vote for a National “government” that will eventually end up screwing them over. But workers should not have to pay for this kind of Middle Class masochism.

Not if we want,

fairness in the workplace

real high wages (not National’s fantasy-variety)

and young New Zealanders encouraged to stay here, instead of migrating to Australia

We went through this batshit in the 1990s and now we’re going through it all again now.

Thus far we have seen no concrete indications that John Key is implementing his promises in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and this year, to raise wages.

Instead, Key and his cronies in National have been studiously implementing law-changes that will inevitably result in the opposite; a dismantling of hard-won working conditions; an undermining of worker-representation in negotiations, and an eventual lowering of wages .

The only conclusion that can be made is that Key has wilfully deceived voters. His public statements advocated raising wages whilst in back-rooms, he and National Party ministers have been contriving to achieve a diametrically opposite agenda.

It serves National’s undisclosed agenda to lower wages, to attract international ‘investment’, and to allow corporations to increase profits on the backs of low-paid workers.

The process has already begun. As Bill English said on TVNZ’s Q+A, last year,

“Well, it’s a way of competing, isn’t it? I mean, if we want to grow this economy, we need the capital – more capital per worker – and we’re competing for people as well…

[…]

… we need to get on with competing with Australia. So if you take an area like tourism, we are competing with Australia. We’re trying to get Australians here instead of spending their tourist dollar in Australia.” – Bill English, 10 April 2011

8. An End to Collective Agreements

The Employment Relations Authority can declare in certain circumstances that collective bargaining has ended.

A duty of good faith does not require the parties to conclude a collective agreement.

Employers can opt out of multi-employer bargaining.

Partial pay reductions in cases of partial strike action.

Removing the 30-day rule that forces non-union members to take union terms and conditions.

Items 1, 2, and 3 have only one purpose; to ensure that an employer can walk away from the negotiating table; scrap any collective agreement; and re-hire workers on individual contracts.

It is solely designed to destroy unions once and for all.

Had Items 1, 2, and 3 been in force this year, POAL (Ports of Auckland Ltd) would have been able to abandon the bargaining table after a mock “negotiation”; locked out any worker on strike; and issued take-it-or-leave-it individual contracts.

The worker’s negotiating agent, the Maritime Union, would have been dis-empowered and destroyed.

Only the current provisions of good-faith bargaining in the Employment Relations Act 2000 and the Employment Relations Authority were able to stop POAL from unilaterally walking away from the negotiating table. (On 27 March this year, the Employment Court issued a judgement severely admonishing POAL for their actions, and ordering them to return to negotiations.)

The same happened when Talleys locked out workers. Talleys was demanding that workers quit their Union and sign individual contracts.

All this will change – and not fot the better – if National proceeds with implementation of their draconian law-changes.

They will serve the purposes of business – whilst leaving employees totally vulnerable and at the mercy of their employers.

This is Third World banana republic stuff.

This will drive wages down, and will send more New Zealanders packing for Australia.

Item 4 is self-evident, and is designed to dissuade employees from strike action. Using financial pressure to control workers would be the inevitable outcome of this law-change.

Again, it would leave workers totally vulnerable to employer demands.

Item 5 – What better way to prevent workers from learning about the benefits of union-membership – than by denying workers the benefits of Union-won conditions? It means that an employer can hire staff at lower pay, or sub-standard conditions.

Labour Minister Kate Wilkinson’s own cabinet paper confirmed that the 30 Day Rule would permit employers to offer lower wages to new workers than those on the collective agreement. What other reasonwould there be for such a radical change in our labour laws?

With unemployment now at 7.3%, more than 175,000 people are now competing for fewer and fewer jobs. If National proceeds with it’s miserable labour “reforms” it will simply result in unemployed job-seekers willing to accept lower and lower pay, and reduced conditions. It will become a dog-eat-dog labour market.

This may satisfy free market fanatics, but it does nothing to fulfill Dear Leader’s pledges to raise wages, or create new jobs.

As usual, Key promises one thing whilst his Minister work quietly in the background to achieve the polar-opposite.

7. Part 6A – stripped away

.

One of the most far-reaching aspects of National’s covert agenda to make the country’s workforce “more flexible” (translation; more exploitable) is their stated intention to remove Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act (ERA), which continues (or transfers under similar conditions and pay) the employment of low-paid employees such as caretakers, cleaners, catering workers, hospital orderlies and laundry workers, after a business is restructured or sold.

This blogger has zero doubt that the same means of removing Part 6A will first apply to small business with fewer than 20 staff – and then later (a year?) will be extended to all employers.

Once Part 6A is removed from the lawbooks, the lowest-paid workers in our communities will be vulnerable. A new employer will be able to re-write their contracts at whim; reduce their pay; change their conditions, or dismiss them altogether. There are many such small business and the impact on their workers could be severe.

Are we detecting a common them with National’s labour “reforms”?

Green Party industrial-relations spokeswoman, Denise Roche, was 100% on-the nose when she described these – and other “reforms” as,

“This decision is straight from the Bill Birch era of industrial relations.”

This is indeed a return to the Employment Contracts Act – by stealth. National is too gutless to face the country by honestly presenting a manifesto returning to the ECA.

Remind us, Mr Prime Minister, how scrapping Part 6A will raise wages, as per your promises?

6. Youth Rates

When Labour was elected into government in 1999, replacing the highly unpopular Shipley-led National administration, one of their first actions was to radically reform the Youth Rate,

From 2001 to 2008 the adult minimum wage applied to employees aged 18 years and over. Prior to that, the adult minimum wage only applied to those aged 20 years and over.

From 1 April 2008, the adult minimum wage applies to employees aged 16 years and over, who are not new entrants or trainees.

The youth minimum wage applied to employees aged 16 and 17 years. From 1 April 2008, the youth minimum wage was replaced with a minimum wage for new entrants, which applies to some employees aged 16 or 17 years.

It did not appear to unduly impact on unemployment, which consistantly tracked downward in the 2000s, until the down-turn caused by the Global Financial Crisis began to impact on our economy, in 2007/08.

On 9 October, Labour Minister Kate Wilkinson announced that National intended to introduce a new Youth Rate, to take effect in April, next year. The rate would be set at $10.80 an hour – compared to the minimum rate of $13.50 an hour currently, and would include 16 to 19 year olds.

As Scoop.co.nz reported,

“That equates to $10.80 an hour, or $432 before tax for a 40-hour week. From April next year, the ‘Starting Out Wage’ will apply to 16- and 17-year-olds in the first six months of a job, to 18- and 19-year-olds entering the workforce after spending more than six months on a benefit, or 16 to 19-year-olds in a recognised industry training course.”

So there’s no new job for the younger worker – s/he is merely displacing an older worker. Which probably results in older workers joining the migration to Australia.

End result; a loss of skill and experience for New Zealand, and a gain for our Aussie cuzzies.

Nice one, Mr Key. Remind us when you took on the role of staff recruiter for Australia?

On top of this, we have this bizarre rationale from Kim Campbell, CEO of the Employers and Manufacturers Association, who is arguing that young people should be paid less because they have less to pay for. I kid you not.

She said,

“Remember these people are not raising a family or running a household on this money –nobody expects them to – but it does give them some money to get started on.”

Campbell’s remark are offensive on several levels.

Firstly, National’s intention to return to Youth Rates for 18 and 19 year olds, as well as 16 and 17 year olds, is simply unreasonable. These people are young adults, and those studying at polytech and University Students will soon be earning less, even while having to pay Student fees; course-costs; and living expenses like rent, food, power, and other financial committments.

Secondly, 18 and 19 year old are as able to have families as their older counterparts.

Thirdly, by what logic is it of Ms Campbell’s business that “these people are not raising a family or running a household on this money“?! It’s none of her damned business what 18 and 19 year olds spend their wages on.

Conversely, does that mean Ms Campbell will encourage companies to pay a higher, living wage,to those workers who do happen to have families?!

Yeah, right.

If National has a secret agenda to motivate more young people to head overseas, such a plan will succeed beyond their wildest dreams.

18 and 19 years olds – old enough to get married; old enough to get drunk; old enough to get killed in a warzone – but not old enough to be paid the same adult rate as a 20 year old?

National should take note; it’s true that 16 and 17 year olds can’t vote.

But 18 and 19 year olds can – and do. I bet they just can’t wait to vote at the next election.

And precisely how does this raise wages, as per Dear Leader’s promises?

Raising the minimum wage would certainly benefit SMEs (Small-Medium Enterprises), as low-income earners spend their entire wages on goods and services. Any rise in paying wages should be offset by increasing till-takings with customers spending more.

So it appears blatantly obvious that no good reason exists not to raise the minimum wage.

After all, in 2009 and 2010, National gave away far more in tax cuts for the rich.

And precisely how does this raise wages, as per Dear Leader’s promises?

4. Rest Home Workers

Amongst the lowest paid workers in this country, Rest Home caregivers earn around $13.61 an hour – just barely above the minimum wage of $13.50.

Human Rights Commissioner, Dr Judy McGregor, found out first-hand what the job entailed,

” Spending hours on her feet, lifting, hoisting, feeding, bathing, dressing and toileting her charges took its toll – and for just $14 an hour, the Human Rights Commission’s equal opportunities commissioner compares it to a form of modern-day slavery.

“The complexity of the job was actually a surprise for me. It’s quite physical work, and it’s emotionally draining because you are obliged to give of yourself to other people,” she said.

“Saint-like women do it every day so that older New Zealanders can have a quality of life”.”

When this was point out to John Key, the following exchange took place on morning TV,

” Key acknowledged there were problems with rural rest homes workers paying for their own travel, effectively reducing their wage below the minimum wage of $13.50 an hour.

“Travel is one of those areas where we are looking at what we can do,” he told TVNZ’s Breakfast programme.

However, the Government could not afford to give DHBs the $140 million required to enable rest homes to pay their staff more.

“It’s one of those things we’d love to do if we had the cash. As the country moves back to surplus it’s one of the areas we can look at but I think most people would accept this isn’t the time we have lots of extra cash”.”

And a “lack of money” certainly didn’t stop the country from spending over $200 million of public money on a sporting tournament,

” Budget blowouts have pushed public spending on the Rugby World Cup well above $200 million – without counting $555 million in stadium upgrades and $39 million in direct losses from hosting the tournament. “

If Key was serious about raising wages, he should clearly have made the lowest paid his Number One Priority. The 2009 and 2010 tax cuts would have made an excellent opportunity to give the biggest tax cuts to the lowest paid workers.

Instead, those tax cuts went to the very top. On top of that, the rise in GST from 12.5% to 15% would have impacted the hardest on those on minimum wage.

Double whammy.

So precisely how does this raise wages, as per Dear Leader’s promises? (Or could it be that when Key promised to raise wages – he was referring to his own?)